Alexandria gazette. [volume] (Alexandria, D.C.) 1834-1974, 1887-02-08

The Coupon Troubles.

The Coupon Troubles.
A dispatch from Richmond says: Judge
Robert W. Hughes, of the United States
District Court for the Eastern District of
Virginia, has written letter to Judge Bond,
in which he vigorously protests against the
hearing of Virginia coupon cases OUTSIDE OF
the jurisdiction of the State. some weeks
AGO Judge Hughes entered an order in the
court requiring the money to be deposited
in these coupon suits before the papera were
issued. Mr.. Royal subsequently, went to
baltimore and asked Judge Bond to sus-
mend this rule. This motion is soon to be
heard in Baltimore. This matter, it is
understood. called forth Judge Hughess
letter.
Judge Bond says that he has not received
letter from Judge Hughes OF the nature
indicated. Furthermore, he says ne does
not know that Judge Hughes proposes to
"protest against the hearing of Virginia
coupon cases outside of the jurisdiction OF
the State" He expects Judge Hughes to
be in Baltimore when the hearing of the
case comes up. and has an understanding
with him 10 that effect. Judge Bond thought
that at some time Judge Hughes may have
said that he would prefer to have the cases
tried at home rather than at Baltimore.
Since the above was put in type we find
the following in this mornings Richmond
Dispatch
UNITED STATES CoURT-RooMs,
7th February, 1887.
Hon. Rgus a. ayers, attorney General Of
Virginia, and William L. Royal, Esq.
Gentlemen received your telegram Of
Saturday asking me to suggest day for
joint hearing by Judge Bond and myself, in
Baltimore, of cases pending in the Circuit
Court Of this district. l was too much &C.
cupied all of that day to consider reply.
| | now have to say that l am unwilling to
unite in holding session of the Circuit
Court of this district in Baltimore for the
hearing and determining of any case or mo-
ton pending in this district. Our jurisdic-
ton is wholly statutory, and no provision
can be found in all the acts of Congress au-
thorizing extra jurisdictional sessions OF the
Circuit Court of any district. In the ab-
sence Of such provision of law, consent OF
parties cannot give Jurisdiction. The hear
ing of mere argument in cases affecting only
the private interests of private persons may
be had but no order that we could deter
mine upon, frame, and sign in Baltimore, in
cases pending here, of the public moment
attaching to these you have it in con-
temptation to cosnider there, could
have any validity, unless entered
here in open court, after full opportuni-
ty given to all parties in interest to be
| heard here. Publicity is the best sanction
of court proceedings-the publicity of open
condensation in open court held in the COM
munity in which the cause arises. The
holding of sessions and hearing of causes in
places dehorS that jurisdiction is the holding
and hearing them in secret, and covering
them with that secrecy in judicial admins.
tration which the common law, which Is the
best inheritance Of our race, abhors.
There is no necessity for such anomalous
sessions OF the Circuit Court. The law is
careful to provide for the continual pres
ence in each district of Judge, (the District
judge whom it qualities to conduct all the
business of its District and Circuit Courts.
This Judge is an institution as old as the Ju'
dietary system of the United States itself,
established in 1889. Upon him the law de-
wolves the aboring oar; him it charges with
the direction and conduct of the business Of
the district; and not until eighty years after
the establishment of the system did the law
give him any but the most casual assistance
in the performance of his work. There is,
therefore, no necessity for these extra-terri-
torial sessions, so destitute OF statutory sane
ton, so liable to abuse. and go destructive
of the sense of responsibility secured by that
publicity which is intended to be an insep-
cradle incident of all judicial procedure.
Therefore, you need not take my presence
into account in any arrangements you may
choose to make for a hearing in Baltimore of
motions and causes pending in this district.
| I shall not attend such session OF the court.
assume that the cases TO which you re.
fer in your telegram are the motion and
cases that were set down for hearing at
Alexandria on the 18th ultimo. l thought
I ought to be present on the bench at the
hearing Of Mr. Royals motion to repeal
my rule, entered on the 21st of December
at Richmond, requiring the deposit with
the clerk of the coupons rendered for taxes
by plaintiffs in trespass suits. The object
/ had in being on the bench can be as well
accomplished in that matter by filing a
statement in writing of my reasons for deny
ing the motion to repeal. therefore en-
close herewith such statement in writing,
and request you, after reading it, to lille 1t
with the clerk at Richmond.
AS I have not time to reserve copy of
this letter and of the writing enclosed, l
| Will Luhuk JOu w nave COpt VI SdNu iAeuO
and sent to Judge Bond in Baltimore.
Yours most respectfully Ro W. HUGHES.
The grand jury OF the Hastings Court OF
| Richmond, in the case of w. l.. Royal,
charged with barratry, yesterday refused to
bring in an indictment, though they thought
the evidence was sufficient, because Mr..
Royal had given notice that he would sue
for damages the jurors who indicted him, as
he had previously done, and because they
were afraid ofpecuniary loss. They asked
for protection against these ntimidations
and threats in the discharge of their duty.
Judge Atkins gave them until II o'clock
this morning to decide upon their final &C.
ton. He told them they were compelled to
bring in true bill the if evidence was suf-
ffcient, and expressed his intention of pun
isbing them for contempt of court if they
did not
In the court yesterday Commonwealth
Attorney Witt asked Judge Atkins to issue